The Relationship between Language and Behavior in Preschool Children

1. The Relationship between Language and Behavior in Preschool Children Ann P. Kaiser, PhD Department of Special Education Vanderbilt University

2. Collaborators • Meta analysis • Megan Roberts • Kelly Feeney-Kettler • Jennifer Frey • ML Hemmeter • IES Goal 3 • Kerry Hofer • Megan Roberts • Ragan McLeod • David Dickinson, co-PI

3. Preschool Language and Behavior Are Independent Predictors of School Success • Language skills/ language delays are predictive of early school performance, reading, and later academic skills • Behavior problems/ social skills predict school outcomes, peer relationships, and long term social adjustment • We hypothesize that co-emergent language and behavior problems place children at greater risk for school failure and social problems • A large number of studies have reported associations between language delays and behavior problems across populations

4. Relations Between Language and Behavior

5. Hypothesized relationships between language and behavior may vary in different populations

6. Goals of This Presentation • Report results of meta-analysis of studies describing co-occurrence of language and behavior in young children • Methods used to characterize the relationship between language and behavior • Examine the relationship between language and behavior among children enrolled in Head Start using parallel methods

7. Objectives of Meta-Analysis • To evaluate the relationship of language and problem behaviors and social skills in young children • To examine the effects of the methods used to characterize the relationships between language and behavior on outcomes

8. Research Questions • Do children with language delays have more problem behaviors than children with typical language skills? • Do children with language delays have poorer social skills than children with typical language skills? • Do apparent outcomes vary based on the methodology used to characterize the language and behavior relationship?

9. Meta Analysis Methods: Inclusion Criteria • Population: • Children between 18 months and 8, 11 months. • At least some study participants with “language impairment” or “language delays.” • Late Talkers • Specific Language Impairment • No other primary disability classification other than language impairment • IQ score of 70 or greater Inclusion criteria shaped by the available literature

10. Meta Analysis Methods: Inclusion Criteria • Types of studies • Written in English • Provided empirical evidence • Comparative data on typical and low language children for current analysis • Measures of both language and behavior

11. Methods: Inclusion Criteria • Outcome measures • At least one of the following measure of problem behaviors or social competence • Direct observation • Parent or teacher/other caregiver interview • Parent or teacher/other caregiver rating scale

12. Methods: Selection of Studies • Phase 1: abstracts screened for inclusion criteria • 665 125 • Primary reasons for exclusion: no comparison between children with and without language delays, age of participants, no problem behavior or social skills measures • Phase 2: full text study reports reviewed • 125  58 • Phase 3: full coding for group comparison analysis • 58 24

13. Meta Analysis Methods: Data Extraction • Two reviewers independently coded each full article using a detailed coding protocol • Coding disagreements were discussed and resolved so that only data with perfect agreement was included in the analysis.

14. Meta-Analysis Methods : Effects Analyses

15. Methods: Data Synthesis • Effect size calculations • For means and standard deviations • For F values: • Effect size adjustments • Hedges small sample correction

16. Methods: Data Synthesis • Independence of effect sizes • Multiple groups • Groups with different ages were averaged • Groups with different language abilities were averaged • Multiple measures • Constructs analyzed separately • When multiple measures of the same construct the effect sizes were averaged

17. Methods: Statistical Model • Mean effect size was calculated by weighting each adjusted effect size by the inverse of its variance.

18. Meta Analysis Methods: Odds Ratio

19. Results: Study Characteristics • 24 studies • Sample size: Mn = 90.8 (range: 15 to 798) • Child Age: 18 to 95 months

20. Meta Analysis : Outcome Measures • Internalizing : 10 studies • Teacher and Parent Rating Scales (e.g., CBCL; CTRF) • Externalizing: 11 studies • Teacher and Parent Rating Scales (e.g., CBCL; CTRF) • Total Problem Behavior: 12 studies • Teacher and Parent Rating Scales (e.g., CBCL; CTRF) • Social Skills: 17 studies • Observational measures (e.g., social interaction coding system; social participation and cognitive play scale).

21. Results: Internalizing • 10 studies; 770 participants • ES = .60, p=0.00

22. Results: Externalizing • 11 studies, 788 participants • ES = .40, p=0.00

23. Results: Total Problem Behaviors • 12 studies; 1636 participants • ES =.39, p=.00

24. Meta Analysis Results: Social Skills • 17 studies, 987 participants • ES = .832, p=0.00

25. Conclusion I • Children with language delays have more problem behaviors than children with typical language skills. • ES internalizing = .6 • ES externalizing =.4 • ES problem behavior =.39 • Children with language delays have poorer social skills than children with typical language skills. • ES social skills= .832

26. Meta Analysis Results • Chi square • Odds ratio

27. Meta-Analysis: Conclusion II • More children with low language have clinical level behavior problems • Risk for behavior is greater for children with low language

28. Meta-Analysis Limitations • Age range is somewhat dichotomous • Toddlers ( below 30 months) • Later preschool/ kindergarten • Missing children ages 30-50 months • Concurrent samples, no longitudinal studies • Stability and developmental patterns unknown • No prediction of impact of behavior on language, achievement • Wide variations in measures of language, behavior and social skills • Method may contribute to variance in findings

29. Limitations • Relatively small data set for exploring complex relationships • Data reported in most studies do not allow determination of • Percentage of children with low language have clinical/subclinical behavior problems • Odds that a child with low language has a behavior problem • Environmental factors are associated with emergent behavior problems (e.g., parenting)

30. Language and Behavior Among Children Enrolled in Head Start • IES Goal 3, ongoing • Teacher Enhanced Language and Literacy (TELL) • In Collaboration with the • Jefferson County Council on Economic Opportunity • Birmingham, AL

31. Child Participants • 472 children • From 6 centers, 52 classrooms • 230 children with low language ( PLS < 76) • % boys • Mn Age at T0 • % African American • 242 children with typical language (PLS> 75) • % boys • Mn Age at T0 • % African American • 8 children from each classroom with low and typical children matched for age, gender • No main effects on PLS by group • Children tested in late summer (T0) and spring (T1)of 4 year old year

32. Primary Measures : T0 and T1 • Preschool Language Scale III (Zimmerman, Steiner & Pond, l992) • Total standard score • Child Behavior Checklist – Teacher Report Form (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) • Internalizing T score • Externalizing T score • Total Problem Behavior T score • Social Skills Rating Scale (Gresham & Elliot, l990) • Social Skills Subscale standard score

33. Research Questions • To evaluate the relationship of language and problem behaviors and social skills in young children at T0 and T1 • To examine the effects of the methods used to characterize the relationships between language and behavior on outcomes • Mn scores for internalizing, externalizing, problem behavior and social skills • Percentages of children at clinical/subclinical levels for behavior and social skills • Relative risk for behavior among low language and typical language children ( odds ratio) • Effects of behavior on language growth during preschool

34. Guide to the slides • Yikes too much information!! • T0 low language T0 behavior and T1 behavior • T1 low language T1 behavior • Mean score or percentage • Effect size (ES) • Significance

35. TELL Results: Children with low language at T0 and T1 have significantly higher internalizing, externalizing, problem behavior behavior

36. TELL Results: Children with low language at T0 and T1 have significantly lower social skills

37. Not all children have behavior problems!!!

38. TELL Results • A higher percentage of children with T0 low language have Externalizing and Total • Problem Behavior at the clinical level at T1 • A higher percentage of children with T1 low language have Internalizing, Externalizing and Total Problem Behavior at the clinical level at T1

39. TELL Results: Children with low language are approximately twice as likely to have clinical/subclinical behavior at end of preschool

40. Not all children have behavior problems

41. TELL Results: T0 Behavior predicts language at T1

42. TELL Results : Effects of behavior on language growth during preschoolChildren with low language at T0 show less growth

43. TELL Results: Behavior predicts language growth

44. TELL Conclusions: The bottom line • Preschool low SES children with low language are about twice as likely to have clinical/ subclinical behavior problems than children with typical language • Although differences in levels of behavior are relatively small, there is evidence of persistent effects of these differences across the preschool year. • Behavior problems at the beginning of preschool predict language at the end of preschool and growth during the preschool year

45. Further analyses are needed • Is the relationship between language delay and problem behaviors the same across ages? • Is the relationship between language delay and problem behaviors the same depending on type of language delay (e.g., expressive only, mixed expressive-receptive)? • Is there evidence of specific types (syndromes) of behavior differentially affecting language? • What are the longer term effects of behavior on reading and achievement?

46. Limitations • Selection of sample impacts the results

47. Recommendations for Practice • Screening and assessment for language problems should also involve screening and assessment for behavior problems and social skills. • Early intervention for young children’s language development needs to concurrently address children’s behavioral and social functioning. • Practitioners who work with young children that have language delays should monitor behavior and social skill development • Course of development in related areas is unknown • Children with persistent language delays may be at greater risk

48. For more information • Ann.Kaiser@Vanderbilt.edu